Privacy advocates have won another round in their fight to gain access to more information about the FBI's Carnivore e-mail surveillance system.

A federal judge this week ordered the FBI to expand its search for records about Carnivore, also known as DCS1000, technology that is installed at Internet service providers to monitor e-mail from criminal suspects. The court denied a motion for summary judgment and ordered the FBI to produce within 60 days "a further search" of its records pertaining to Carnivore as well as a device called EtherPeek, which manages network traffic.

The FBI has defended Carnivore by assuring the public that it only captures e-mail and other online information authorized for seizure in a court order, but the Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC) has voiced concerns over potential abuse. EPIC sued the FBI, the investigative arm of the Justice Department, in July 2000 under the Freedom of Information Act so it could examine Carnivore-related documents....

In September 2000, the Justice Department commissioned IIT Research Institute, an arm of the Illinois Institute of Technology, to undergo a review of Carnivore. Two months later, the institute released its findings, saying the technology "protects privacy and enables lawful surveillance better than alternatives." The report said Carnivore provides investigators with no more information than is permitted by a given court order and that it poses no risk to Internet service providers.

What a load of $%#@$ !!!!!!!!!You managed to REALLY &%$$ me off!!
I wonder who "Response" could be? A spook? A spook-friendly member posting anonymously? Whoever "Response" is they are fundamentally dishonest spreading disinformation by omission.

Hey, if you're going to come in here and post on this board, let's at least be honest and give ALL the facts. Especially if you're going to cut n' paste from an article without telling the WHOLE truth.

I got a little hot under the collar reading your piece. I remember, very well, the report from the Illinois Institute of Technology being roundly criticized by privacy groups and even security pros like Matt Blaze ( http://www.crypto.com/ ) who blasted the report as a sham. I REMEMBERED WELL, So I went hunting.

And what do you know Your post was lifted nearly word for word from a CNET article from November 22nd, 2000. (A date (11-22) the FBI should remember well -- Dallas, Texas? 1963?) In fact, your final paragraph WAS word for word.

If you are going to quote verbatim from an article, at least be HONEST about it! What else, "Response," did that same article say?

Well, let's see, you might have been honest and mentioned that (quoting from the SAME article you lifted your post from): Several prominent universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), backed out of the application process after the Justice Department released the guidelines for the study, saying restrictions placed on the scope of the review took away from its independence.

When IIT was chosen to perform the review, critics said it would not be independent because the IIT reviewers were government insiders.

For example, Dean Henry H. Perritt from the university advised President Clinton's transition team on information policy. Other members of the university's review team have either worked in the past on government projects or hold active security clearances.

And here's the REAL KICKER from right after they had selected Illinois Institute of Technology and didn't want people to know the above:
(From the same article you ripped your post off from)

The Justice Department had blacked out this information when it released a document about the selected team. However, people reading the documents with Adobe software were able to view the unaltered document, which adds to suspicions about the review process.

The link that Mr. Wilder posted was about the court ruling against the FBI in its long fight with EPIC (which, by the way, the "bureau" is losing at every turn). The final insult from your plagiarized post was that this suit was mentioned in this very article from CNET with these words, "EPIC sued the FBI for information through the Freedom of Information Act and is conducting its own analysis.

In a second batch of paperwork received from the FBI last week, EPIC concluded that Carnivore can capture and archive "unfiltered" Internet traffic--contrary to FBI assertions.

"The little information that has become public raises serious questions about the privacy implications of this technology," EPIC general counsel David Sobel said in a statement. "The American public cannot be expected to accept an Internet snooping system that is veiled in secrecy."

Anybody wanna read the article in CNET from 2000?
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-248954.html?legacy=cnet

"Response," you can't come into this forum and attempt to trick us with disinformation that has been thoroughly discredited. But, good try. People here are smarter than you may realize. It makes me think you ARE with the "bureau" as your post of disinformation is about the quality of work we've come to expect the last few years from the FBI. How pathetic.

Not only not the American public. Remember the Netherlands is famous for being the most phone/wire tapped country in the world. Not that we really worry, think people just as easy call the national security services to give them something to look at.
Read yesterday some kind of equivalent in Australia with changing the definition who or what is a terrorist so they can use any kind of system to snoop on citizens and without any reasons. Of course one can expect to locate suspects they will include the computer snooping.
Trying to find back the URL with that article for you, will edit when i find it back.

John - Good catch! I read 'Response's' post yesterday, but by the time I finished rolling around on the floor laughing, I had to get ready for work!

Noticed he/she/it hasn't posted back to the thread (their computer is probably still smoking from your response - keyboard too hot to touch <g> ) , but let me just throw in an observation:

In all my dealings with people in various places when trying to rouse them about the latest government rape of their privacy, I notice that there are many people who, far from being government agents themselves, are simply terrified to even contemplate the fact that our government would do these kinds of things to them.

Their responses/defenses are explained quite simply - it's DENIAL of the problem, and they'll use whatever lame 'study' is available to re-assure themselves that all is right with their world, or fall back on the 'If you don't have anything to hide, why should you care what the government does?" non-argument.

They simply can't handle what's going on these days and their response is to stick their heads up their - um, in the sand, that is.

That's not to say that there aren't people out there deliberately spreading mis-information about these issues - there are and they do - but the greatest threat to our personal liberty today as a country isn't those people, it's the people who will not acknowledge (or do anything about) the problem when it's staring them in the face.

Apathy and denial, pure and simple, has brought us to where we are today - it'll eventually destroy us if something doesn't change. Pete

In all my dealings with people in various places when trying to rouse them about the latest government rape of their privacy, I notice that there are many people who, far from being government agents themselves, are simply terrified to even contemplate the fact that our government would do these kinds of things to them.

Response: You are right - the article that was linked in the first post that started this thread included the same language. CNet is getting lazy in lifting from their past stories (by two different writers.) When you post something without attribution, whether it was from an article today or two years ago on the same subject, most would assume you lifted the written piece as your own. But, I'll give you that one - it was in both articles. So, what that tells us is that Pete was right when he wrote:

I notice that there are many people who, far from being government agents themselves, are simply terrified to even contemplate the fact that our government would do these kinds of things to them.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you wouldn't have cut 'n pasted the final paragraph one for word if it wasn't meant as a comment from you. Hence your name of "Response" when you posted as an unregistered visitor. So, what changes from my original response to your "response" is that I know you're probably not from the FBI, as you took your post from the latest article rather than the older one that explained the problems with the study. And that is what matters here. What I should have done was level my aim at you for gullibility and CNet for their inexcusable failure to remind readers that the IIT study has been completely discredited.

I know by the time I got to the final paragraph of the latest CNet article I had smoke coming out of my ears from someone even TRYING to use that flawed IIT study as anything but a front job for Carnivore. (Especially considering the individuals involved.) So my criticism stands even as I am quite relieved that "Response" didn't apparently know what he was defending when he cut 'n pasted from the latest article. At least, I hope not. My apologies for having you pegged as a spook. If you didn't know, you didn't know. I also apologize for having you pegged as a plagiarizer. Understand I had no idea you were posting from the article word for word. It was a comment all its own, especially when coupled with the visitor name you used -- "Response." You chose to just post part of the article and that's where I am angered by CNet for not telling the whole story about the ITT study in this latest article - as they did so well in their other.

I agree with Pete's astute observation that one doesn't have to be a spook to buy this stuff, but merely in denial about what's going on with Carnivore and the FBI's claim of integrity in their use of it and their false insistence it cannot do more than their claims. I hope you are not so naive as to feel the FBI is an agency full of good old boys who wouldn't dare abuse such technology. Why not join us here for more discussion?

Or.... am I being paranoid if a small part of me wonders if you already are here with us? I must admit though, my paranoia has been running high of late knowing that under the guise of the (anti) PATRIOT ACT the spooks are having a field day. But then again, I bet a lot of us wonder when a visitor drops by for a thought if its not a member making a point without having to answer for it. It wouldn't be the first time. If this whole issue of the FBI/EPIC face-off and the "truth about Carnivore" is of intense interest to anyone, please email me as I have tons of things I could send you to review.

John - I think it's writerranger jerking our chain, waddayou think? And where's that article I saw earlier this morning about how Carnivore is a whole lot less selective in what it collects than the FBI originally would have had us believe (something from EPIC, I believe). Pete

Response: Just how DO you feel about the issue at hand? Maybe I have you pegged all wrong. I just posted my last thing and read your "BTW" and now I am confused. You have now posted before I did and seemed as put out as me that the CNet articles are different (in that this latest one wrote what you pasted in your post without the further reporting of the questions about the review process and the final results of the ITT study.) Are you saying you agree with all of those who have blasted the IIT Report? Even after learning that was a paste from the latest article, I assumed you were defending the benign nature of Carnivore (mainly because of the name you chose "Response"). I was glad to read your latest post as it sounds like you are actually agreeing with what I wrote concerning the "independent report." Just confused by the name, etc. That's why maybe just a sentence or two along with your original posting of a paragraph from the article would have helped. If you are on board and don't actually buy that IIT study, I am glad to know that.

BTW, I have written to CNet about their mentioning the IIT Report in this latest article on EPIC's win in court without mentioning all they have reported in the past. I'll keep everyone posted as to whether I receive a reply.

Everytime I post, Response has posted something else right after I hit "post". Now, it looks like you WERE with EPIC all along. Now I really wish you would have added something to your paste from the CNET article. If you are as involved and interested as you appear to be, I am very, very curious why you posted just that pasted paragraph under the name of "Response" and without comment? Just really curious as much as anything. It sounds like you could have had a lot to offer.

Pete, that article about EPIC's arguments was the link in Mr. Wilder's original post. That was the CNET article dated March 27th. EPIC's involvement in the suit and information on all litigation over Carnivore can be found at http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/

You might also be interested to know, if you haven't seen the news already, that EPIC filed suit yesterday against Tom Ridge's Office of Homeland Security over their secret plans on the National ID card. I would have mentioned this earlier, but we've been dealing with this interesting post from "Response" which seemed to be a defense of the FBI in their defense against the EPIC lawsuit.